"Last week a large, profitable company sued a small start-up business for patent infringement. As a non-legal person, I can only guess that this sort of thing must happen fairly often. I would also guess that the large companies, which have the means to hire crackerjack legal teams and drag cases out, must often win. And while I guess I feel bad for the small businesses, I've never really cared before now. Because this time, the stakes are high. This time, it's my daughter's voice on the line. Literally." Infuriating. Maybe these are the kinds of stories we need to get normal people to care enough to force lawmakers to change. Sadly, the big bags of money from Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle are probably far more important to them than this sad story.

Patents are just a means to an end. Their sole purpose is to promote innovation.

To develop this further - these question should never be "Is the patent system working?"

The relevant question is:

"Do the bargains with private entities that are in place continue to serve the stated goal of developing and advancing culture, technology and the well-being of the larger society at a cost that is equitable and bearable?"

In evaluating this question, the "cost" to society includes the chilling effect of the protection in place - does protecting one innovator to advance society 5 clicks prevent 50 other innovators from advancing society 500 clicks? If so, the bargain is a bad one and the system is out of balance.

It is amazing how difficult it is for some people to wrap their heads around the idea that the various IP protections codified in law were not conceived of for the benefit of private interests and their quest for bling. The sole basis of society "agreeing" to protect these private interests was the benefit gleaned by the larger society.